Talk:John Edwards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 John Edwards was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 22, 2008
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Edwards article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
1, 2

Contents


[edit] FYI: National Enquirer story, BLP issues

Get ready for a deluge of edits. DrudgeReport is carrying this image:

http://drudgereport.com/ne.jpg

Which indicates the Enquirer is about to go to press with a story about a "love child". Lawrence Cohen 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Lawrence. Tvoz |talk 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC
Story is located here: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426 Whatever you think about the article, it may be relevant to the campaign. Suggest mentioning something to the effect of "On Dec 19, 2007, the National Enquirer reported that Senator Edwards had a pregnant mistress." Something even-handed, non-inflammatory, and factual. Then protect the article. 5minutes (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a statement. Let's see if it holds and if we can stave off flame wars. 5minutes (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?? You post a comment in a section that makes it clear that the national enquirer is not a reliable source and wonder if it will stay? Heh. Find a reliable source. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. NE isn't a reliable source, and there's essentially no argument to the contrary. Reporting this here right now is a simple violation of WP:BLP. · jersyko talk 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. Can you guys post up a list of sources "not considered to be reliable" so that there won't be any further confusion? So far, all I've gotten is "it's not a reliable source" and "it's not a reliable source, dadgumit". Or are you guys just being overly defensive about a statement that, as I said earlier, was even-handed (I did not say it was true or not), non-inflammatory (no allegation against Sen. Edwards), and factual (the Enquirer DID report a potential scandal)? 5minutes (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia's BLP standards state the following: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Sounds like right now the only debate is to whether the Enquirer is a reliable source. I'm still waiting on you guys to provide a list. 5minutes (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SOURCES: "mainstream newspapers". Supermarket tabloids do not qualify. Drudge does not qualify. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Define "Mainstream". There's several "mainstream" newspapers that I would be hesitant to call "reliable" - my own hometown newspaper being one. 5minutes (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Then err on the side of caution, and keep material like this out of articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just drop it, 5minutes. You now have three very experienced editors telling you that The National Enquirer is not a reliable source and can not be used to include this material in the article. Frankly, you aren't going to find anyone that is going to support you on this. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not our job to prove that NE and Drudge are unreliable or otherwise provide a list of reliable sources. Rather, per Wikipedia policy, the burden is on the editor wanting to include the material to demonstrate the material's verifiability and the source's reliability. · jersyko talk 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but it sure would be nice to have a list of sources that are considered "acceptable". I wonder how many of you guys would accept reports from Fox News, for instance? 5minutes (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Although Fox News has a political slant, it is still a reliable source as it is an actual journalistic outfit. The same cannot be said of the National Enquirer. There are plenty of resources on Wikipedia if you're interested in learning what constitutes a reliable source, but the core principal is that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Are you actually trying to make the case that the National Enquirer fits this description? Really? Anyway, the issue is pretty much moot at this point as the "story" has already died for lack of evidence. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)5minutes, as I pointed out on your talk page, read the verifiability, reliable sources, and biographies of living people policies. They do a fairly god job of defining what a reliable source is. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The one thing I'd add to Loonymonkey's assessment of Fox News is that one should be leery of using things said during the crosstalks on their punditry shows (O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, etc), because those are not fact checked. This is particularly true if the person saying it is not the host of those shows or a Fox News reporter. It is also not unique to shows on Fox News. I'd be leery of anything said on a punditry show on any channel if the person saying it was not the host of the show or an reporter for that station. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sourced things from foxnews.com many times. They actually run with AP stories a lot. As Bobblehead says, pundit shows are completely worthless as sources, no matter what channel they're on; they are staged hot-air-fests for infotainment purposes only. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I attempt to watch/read as many media outlets as humanly possible. I disagree that Fox News is starkly different than most other media outlets. Last week I watched Andrea Mitchell (on Chris Matthews program) describe how horribly Romney performed on the last Iowa debate. I've not seen a similar assessment in other media. Having lived in Philadephia at one time (where Andrea gained her journalism skills), I couldn't help from feeling a bit dissapointed in her injecting a personal bias on national television. So, the pundits exist everywhere - as does fairness and level-headedness. It truly is a full-time job to separate truth from diminished truth. (Oxfordden (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
This conversation appears to be becoming irrelevant to this Wikipedia article. Please see WP:FORUM. · jersyko talk 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were discussing the validity of media, such as, National Enquirer, Drudge, Fox News, etc - as it relates to determining whether these sources are of validity in a WP forum. Where did the conversation go askew? (Oxfordden (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
The news items aren't being discussed by Fox News, but rather by Matt Drudge and The National Enquirer. Thus, further discussion of Fox doesn't appear to be particularly relevant. · jersyko talk 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
According to you, of course. One just needs to read the comments of Bobblehead, Loonymonkey, and others to see that others are discussing media outlets other than Drudge and NE. I've responded to existing comments on Fox News reporting - I didn't inititated it. Please let the rest of us know when you add another outlet to your approved list of relevent sources. I sincerely do wish to conform. (Oxfordden (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)).
Your comment above that Jersyko was responding to was veering off into commentary on your disappointment in Andrea Mitchell, which is, I would guess, where the conversation went "askew". Tvoz |talk 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Which was in direct response to Wasted Time's comment on worthless sources - so - completely relevent and within context (IMHO). However, I'll choose to complete my comments on this thread because I think they are becoming a waste of time (in and of itself) discussing who's right and wrong. I have bigger fish to fry. Uncle :-) (Oxfordden (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Article could use some work

Little or no mention of any of his many scandals. This is more a pro-Edwards political ad rather than a encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.168.30 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What scandals would those be, that are covered by multiple reliable sources? Do you have sources to provide? Lawrence Cohen 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Investing in predatory lending, voting for the Iraq war, charging $55000 to give a speech poverty, campaigning on two Americas while getting $400 haircuts, only highlights of his career as a trial lawyer appear on the page, his vote to support the patriot act is barely mentioned, ect . All the questionable issues surrounding Edwards are short and lacking detail, followed by a defense of Edwards. Negatives should not be mentioned and then followed up with a staunch defense of the person of question. The page reads like a political ad. I understand many of the editors on this page are Edwards supporters, but the constant crusades to keep any 'bad news' about the guy off wikipedia is inappropriate. Look at the other candidates pages, they allow much more negative information. There are plenty of reliable sources which have documented Mr.Edwards short comings, however to put together a impartial set of criticism is pointless when the page will be instantly vandalized by John Edwards supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by talk (talk • contribs)
Try looking at John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008 for many of the things you mention such as haircuts, Iraq war vote (also covered in this article as well as the subarticle on political positions), Fortress group (also covered in this main article) - and you didn't mention the anti-Catholic bloggers, "bumper sticker" and expensive house and maybe some others - but the appropriate articles do. We cover a wide expanse of his legal career - what would you have us add to that already long section? He voted for the Patriot Act and we say so - what does "barely mentioned" mean, and what more is there to say? Your tired assumption that "many of the editors on this page are Edwards supporters" isn't supported by any evidence, and is rather insulting to boot. And some of us edit many politicians' articles, across party lines. The vandalism that we deal with, by the way, tends to come from people who think adding "Breck girl" to the page is a valid edit. But I'm sure you, being fair-minded and neutral, wouldn't approve of that either. As Lawrence said, if you have reliably sourced scandals that we've missed, please tell us and provide citations. Tvoz |talk 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, your rant is highly inappropriate. Never did I mention anything to do with some blogger that worked for his campaign or a supposed affair reported by the Enquirer. Obviously you take any criticism of Mr.Edwards very personally. I think you might want to take a more unbiased, rational attitude when discussing page content on wiki. Yes, you are correct, there are short (usually a few words) informational portions of the page about things you may consider to be less than desirable actions by Mr.Edwards. However, there is always a biased counter argument to any portion I have before mentioned. The issue here is consistency in wiki page content. Many of the other biographies on wiki may not have the level of 'passionate' editors sifting out information which may show the biographical subject in a less than flattering light. Certain information about this individual, even though it may make you angry, is viable and appropriate. I am not suggesting adding hearsay or unfounded Enquirer stories in the John Edwards page. I do think that some facts related to the man should be expounded upon. I would be more than happy to add viable, accurate information to the page (with citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.168.30 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but unfortunately, you missed my point which was that we do cover "scandals" when they are well-sourced - which is why I included the anti-Catholic bloggers as an example in my list of some of the negative things we talk about in these articles that you didn't mention. And you didn't respond to any of the points I made about other things that you claim we don't cover, you just characterized them as a "rant" - that's a personal attack, in my view. Criticize the content, not the contributors. You might also read some Wikipedia policy about neutrality and undue weight as well as how to handle biographies, since you appear to be new here. And to be clear: I don't take criticism of Edwards personally at all, I take your criticism of editors on these articles personally - because I am one of them and you attacked us. And I, as well as several of the other "regulars" here, also heavily edit Hillary Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Romney, and the others - I have an intimate knowledge of all of those and most of the rest of them, and you can rest assured, opponents of each of them make the same argument you're making here about bias, and no more validly. So if I appear angry it is because you were rather insulting to the editors who have worked hard here to write neutral and comprehensive articles in the face of people who come here and to the articles of other people who are running for office just to throw some mud on them. Now, if you'd like to share some reliably sourced criticisms that we've overlooked, please do so. You don't have to wait the four days - post it here on Talk. But do read WP:BLP first. Tvoz |talk 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Tboz, you are very welcome for the words of advice and I hope they can help with your future discussions and edits here at wikipedia . I will first respond to your accusations of a person attack. I merely stated an observation based on your spirited responses in the discussion portion of this article. I'm am sorry, but your intentions here do seem biased, that is not a person attack. Everyone, at times, can be biased even when trying to maintain objectivity. Hopefully we can work together to make this biography even better. I am not attacking you in any sense, I just feel the page is not neutral. I sincerely hope you can distinguish my criticism of the article from an attack on you. Oh, and I am new here. Thanks for the warm welcome :)
I do plan on editing the article once my four day wait period is over. I can assure you I am not here to trash Mr.Edwards' biography or any other article here at wikipedia. I have reviewed the NPOV and UNDUE policies here and agree with them whole heartedly. But hey, maybe someone will just come in here and delete all discussions of the article they disagree with. I changed the title of this portion of the discussion page to a more constructive context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recursive1298 (talk • contribs)

[unindent] No, actually you said "I understand many of the editors on this page are Edwards supporters, but the constant crusades to keep any 'bad news' about the guy off wikipedia is inappropriate" and "to put together a impartial set of criticism is pointless when the page will be instantly vandalized by John Edwards supporters" before I said anything in this section, so it was not at all based on anything I said, let alone my "spirited responses" here. You accused the editors of this page of bias, and repeated your accusation later on, and that is not acceptable. It is a personal attack. Once again, if there are reliably sourced items that you think should be here, tell us what they are. You are certainly free to edit the article after four days - I was merely offering that you didn't have to wait for that, but could post your sourced material here right now. And if you really want to work together with the people who have been conscientiously editing here, I'd suggest you stop including comments like maybe someone will just come in here and delete all discussions of the article they disagree with. Read WP:BLP - we take it seriously. Tvoz |talk 09:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for changing the header in this section (which I didn't see until after I saved the above) - that's much better than your original. Tvoz |talk 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I read the other comments on this article and made a observation. I stand by this observation and still believe there is bias involved in this article. Your claims of being personally attacked, while patronizing me, is fairly ironic. I saw your links to WP:BLP the first 2 times. I will certainly adhere to these standards as I am sure you and most other wikipedia editors make their best effort to do.Recursive1298 (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think is ironic about it - I called you on your attack of the editors. Our references to BLP and UNDUE are important, because that is at the crux of whether or not material should make it into a biography, so yes, I mentioned them several times as did other editors here and will likely do again. I'm sorry if you felt patronized (and glad that you changed your comments here and here to remove yours), but the fact is you never answered the replies to your content point, other than to repeat that you think there is bias - and yes, ascribing motives to the editors when you actually have no idea of what their motives are or who they support in the election is considered an attack. All you or anyone need to do is present reliably sourced criticisms that we haven't included in the appropriate section or sub-article, and the content will be evaluated fairly. But screaming "bias" without providing substance is an attack. I can also tell you, from a great deal of experience on Wikipedia, that there are a lot of people watching these articles, and bias in any direction isn't going to last long. Tvoz |talk 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You were not attacked, please learn to distinguish between criticism of your work and a personal attack. This is my last reply to you on this subject of "you were attacked" as it is going nowhere. Also please refer to WP:Policy specifically Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. I would ask you to refrain from harassment. Recursive1298 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] meta talk

another user removed the discussion above regarding 'worst wiki pages' on the rationale that the discussion was a possible WP:BLP vio. the problem is, i see it as less so than the discussion above that, about the enquirer article. according to WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis mine). so by that rationale, pretty much the entire talk page here should go, because it discusses poorly sourced info about a living person. i reverted the removal of just the 'worst wiki page' section. why? well, i'm not sure. i figured that removing only one wasn't right, since i think both should go, but - i'm not going to just meat-axe the whole page based on what is an ambiguous issue - is talking about the inappropriateness of un/poorly sourced info also inappropriate? so, i figured i'd toss it right into the mix here and at least get some feedback. (yeah, the above's a bit disjointed, sorry. ambiguous metadiscussion makes my brain hurt, particularly when i'm doing it). Anastrophe (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - there must have been an edit conflict because I thought I reinstated it - for pretty much the same reasons as you give - and to reply. So I agree with your revert - I think it's kind of borderline as to whether it all should go. Tvoz |talk 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mandatory Aspects of Edwards' Health Care Plan

Lawrence Cohen was right in undoing the change I made to the description of Edwards' health care plan, because the citation didn't justify the change. I've re-added the claims that were deleted, this time adding citations that I'd added to Political positions of John Edwards. According to my reading of his campaign site and the ABC article, under his plan citizens would be required by law to purchase health care and to obtain regular medical checkups in a government-approved manner; and companies that don't provide health care will be required to pay into a federal system (ie. taxed). Is this a fair set of statements? -Kris Schnee (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Iowa Caucus results

I think the Iowa caucus results on the article page (which I can't edit) should be listed to 2 decimal points: in actuality, Edwards got 29.75% while Clinton got 29.45%, a difference of .28%. The media seems to have failed to notice that the difference is miniscule (and even a 1% difference would really be a non-difference). At least wikipedia could get it right if this were changed! See offical Iowa results at http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/. This is just yet another example of the media manipulating facts to make a better story - what kind of a headline would "Edwards beats Clinton by .28%" be? For historical purposes, I think wikipedia should list to 2 decimals when the difference is so small.Zzalzzal (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence that the 2004 election was stolen

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman of www.freepress.org argue that a GAO report confirms that the presidential election was stolen for Bush. The authors state that the sworn statements and affidavits of numerous voters support the fact that such vote switching did occur, and that the switches benefited George W. Bush, essentially giving him the election. Fitrakis and Wasserman claim that, along with dozens of examples of large-scale voter disenfranchisement and "statistical impossibilities," including the Ohio exit poll disparity, the GAO report demonstrates that election fraud did occur in 2004. [1]

In February 2006, BlackBoxVoting.org reported that there were over 100,000 data irregularities in the touch-screen voting machines used in Palm Beach County, including votes recorded in the system several days prior to actual voting. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.13 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with John Edwards, and why have you put it here? -Kris Schnee (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Presumably the point is that John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, had his election stolen from him. So the poster probably is suggesting that this information be included in the 2004 election section. It's certainly not irrelevant to his bio, but not clear that it's reliable enough or appropriate for this article rather than the one on the 2004 election. Tvoz |talk 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Edwards

If we should follow the path from Obama, the article Edwards should point directly to this. Then the current Edwards should be moved to Edwards (disambiguation). Just look at the history of Obama if you wonder what I'm saying: [3] Greswik (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards is not nearly as well known as Barack Obama and the pure number of people with the last name of Edwards makes it unclear if someone typing in Edwards is looking for John Edwards, or someone else with the last name of Edwards. Barack Obama just lucked out and has an uncommon last name.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I visited obama's page earlier. Edwards is not nearly as synonymous with the name john edwards, as is Obama and the word Obama. Sentriclecub (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edwards

It should be worded that he was "suspending" his campaign, not ending it as those were his exact words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.89.206 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA review

1. Prose- Fail. Includes Wikipedia:Words to avoid, lead section might need to include more detail (like poverty as signature issue) and background (Bill Clinton good example of intro, though this intro probably shouldn't be that long). Some sections are too short and need to be expanded and merged for style. There are a few short paragraphs, which is frowned on. Lists might be more graphically exciting or integrated into article. See Wikipedia:Embedded list for ideas or use Hillary Clinton election grids at the bottom for examples. What lists are included or not included is often debated, by these are some potential ways to improve. Wikipedia:Words to avoid need to be removed.

2. Verifiable- Fail. Some areas lack sources all together. There are even a few references needed and original research tags that need to be fixed, but areas where there is whole paragraphs without citations need to be addressed too.

3. Coverage- Fail- The coverage concerning Edwards role in the general election 2004 race is limited. The main article the section links too isn't much better. Some more discussion of why Edwards was chosen, his debate with President Cheney, talk of Edwards Kerry split. Also, no talk in the 2008 campaign section about Kerry endorsement or the debates. It's a summary, but the high points in the race still need to be covered. No talk of Ann Coulter exchange or expensive haircuts?

4. Neutral- Fail. Only positive information is presented about Edwards. He did have some critics and none of it is mentioned here. Also, problems with NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.

5. Stable- Check 6. Images- Check. Good images.

I hope this review is not discouraging, but provides for useful feedback to improve this article. Only a very few article on wikipedia meet good article or featured article status. You are always welcome to message my talk page with questions. Good luck!User:calbear22 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loonymonkey Edits in "Legal Career"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loonymonkey claims that this isn't "notable" so he deleted it: Edwards' performance during the trial has been criticized, on the grounds that Edwards manufactured a discovery dispute in order to persuade the Judge to issue rulings in Edwards' favor, that Edwards asked misleading questions of Sta-Rite's expertwitness in order to mislead the jury, and made an highly prejudicial closing argument by referencing the death of his son.[1]

The whole "Legal Career" section of this article is flowing with praise for Edwards and there is no opposing viewpoint. I think it provides needed balance to the "Legal Career" section.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsement

This statement: "Edwards announced on March 22, 2008 that he would not endorse either Democrat canidate." is not true. He did not announce anything. The citation given in the edit summary is a dead link. Please stop adding incorrect information with bogus citation. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Jet Skis/ Colbert Report appearance

I came accross the following quote under the post senate activities section that raised an eyebrow: "On 2008-04-17 John Edwards appeared on The Colbert Report at the Pennsylvania Primary 2008 coverage. John Edwards did his own section of 'The Word' called 'EdWORDS'. Edwards tried to sell his support to one of the democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by "selling himself out" for a pair of Kawasaki jet-skis." I watched this particular episode (as I watch every Colbert Report episode), and the notion that he would sell his support for a pair of jetskis was obviously a joke; rather he used the opportunity to state that he would endorse whichever candidate supported the strongest anti-poverty initiatives. --Jml4000 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was a joke, and it's been removed from the article. Tvoz |talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)